State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raju S/O. Krishna Savarkar vs The Executive Engineer (Electrical) on 20 July, 2022
Daily Order BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2022 PRESENT SRI. RAVI SHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI : MEMBER Appeal No. 1401/2013 Raju S/o. Krishna Savarkar R/o. Shripewadi Near Halsiddanath Mandir Akkol Road, Nippani Tq. Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum (By Sri. Yogesh L. Hiremath) V/s ....Appellant The Executive Engineer (Electrical) HESCOM, Division Office Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum The Asst. Executive Engineer (Electrical) HESCOM, Division Office, Nippani Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum Muneer Ahmed Anwarbhasha Mulla Head of HESCOM, Nippani Sub Division, Nippani Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum Dinkar Vishnu Jadhav Mechanic (Lineman) HESCOM Nippani, Tq. Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum (By Sri. Prashanth T. Pandit) .....Respondents O R D E R
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint against the order dated 23.05.2013 passed in C.C.No. 411/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant had obtained electricity connection from OP to his house and paying electricity bills regularly. For his livelihood he established a tea stall business nearby his house. Such being the case on 06.01.2010 at 9.15 a.m. electrical wires cut down which was passed over the tea stall and fallen on the tea stall. Entire tea stall was burnt, due to which complainant also suffered some injuries. Immediately he went to hospital and took treatment. Subsequently, same was informed to the OP and police also. Police registered crime No.6/2010. There afterwards claimed compensation for the loss of tea stall, but, the OP not honoured the claim made by this complainant. Hence, he approached District Commission claiming compensation.
District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint for the reasons he had not obtained any electricity connection to the said tea stall and he is not a 'consumer' as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act, against which complainant / appellant before this commission.
Appellant not present since from long time. Heard from respondent.
On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order it is seen that the complainant had obtained electricity connection to his residential house, but, had not obtained any electricity connection to the tea stall established by him nearby his home. We observed here that electricity wires running over the tea stall and on 06.01.2010 electricity wires cut down and fallen on the tea stall and it was burnt, for which complainant alleged deficiency in service and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh and damages of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has not obtained any electricity connection to the tea stall. It is an unauthorized establishment. Of course, we agree with the order passed by the District Commission. Apart from that no person is authorized to establish or run any business under the electrical line which passes through. It is prohibited in accordance with the Electricity Act. Therefore, the claim made by complainant is not justifiable. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has not obtained any license or electricity supply to the said tea stall. It is an unauthorized establishment. Hence, we found there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not honouring the claim. Accordingly, no interference is required. Appeal is also dismissed.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CV*